RNI: DELENG/2005/15153 No: DL(E)-01/5079/08-10

Publication: 15th of every month Licensed to post without pre-payment U(E) 28/2008-10
Posting: 19th /20th of every month at NDPSO Rs.100
ISSN 0973-2136

Volume V, Issue 2, February 2009 THE MONTHLY MAGAZINE ON POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND BEYOND

Skybridge-Telesaurus C-HALO Comments herein.

1. Why GPS-GNSS needs to be augmented for high-accuracy Intelligent or Smart

Transport, Energy and Environment (and other Applications), and

2. Why N-RTK is needed for this augmentation (see also the C-HALO papers on
Scribd) and why it needs the C-HALO planned dedicated, licensed, wide-area secure
wireless stems as its foundation.

The dangers of
GPS/GNSS

February 2009 | 
 colophon and contents

In this issue
Volume 5, Issue 2, February 2009

Articles

The dangers of GPS/GNSS Börje Forssell 6 Challenges before National Mapping Organisations Vanessa
Lawrence CB, P Nag, Lam Joon Khoi 10 Quality evaluation of NRTK correction transmission Lei Yang, Chris
Hill, Xiaolin Meng and Jose Aponte 14 Accuracy performance of hand-held GPS Abdullah S Alsalman and
Abdullah E Ali 27 Geomatics in Pakistan A W Mir 30

Columns
My Coordinates Editorial 5 News Remote Sensing 32 GPS 34 Galileo update 35 LBS 36 GIS 36 Industry 38
Mark your calendar February 2009 to September 2009 42

This issue has been made possible by the support and good wishes of the following individuals and companies Abdullah E
Ali, Abdullah S Alsalman, A W Mir, Börje Forssell, Chris Hill, Jose Aponte, Lam Joon Khoi, Lei Yang, P Nag, Vanessa Lawrence CB,
Xiaolin Meng and Antrix, Hemisphere GPS, Sanding, Magellan, Navcom, NovAtel, NRSA, Spirent, Javad, Leica, South; and many
others

Mailing Address Coordinates is an initiative of cGIT that aims to broaden the Editor Bal Krishna
11C Pocket A scope of positioning, navigation and related technologies.
SFS Mayur Vihar Phase III cGIT does not neccesarily subscribe to the views expressed Owner Centre for Geoinformation Technologies
Delhi 110 096, India. by the authors and advertisers in this magazine and may not
Phones +91 11 22632607, 98102 33422, 98107 24567 be held liable for any losses caused directly or indirectly due Designed at Thomson Press India Ltd.
Fax +91 11 22632607 to the information provided herein. © cGIT, 2009. Reprinting
with permission is encouraged; contact the editor for details. Printer Thomson Press India Ltd., B 315, Okhla Phase I,
Email New Delhi-110020, India
[information]talktous@mycoordinates.org Annual subscription (12 issues) [India] Rs.1,200
[editorial]bal@mycoordinates.org [Overseas] US$80 This issue of Coordinates is of 44 pages, including
[advertising]sam@mycoordinates.org cover
[subscriptions]iwant@mycoordinates.org Printed and published by Sanjay Malaviya on behalf of Centre
for Geoinformation Technologies at A221 Mangal
 | February 2009
Web www.mycoordinates.org Apartments, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi 110096, India.
 GNSS
The dangers of GPS/GNSS
The problem is that nothing works 100 %. GPS is very close, but for some
users under some circumstances, “very close” is not good enough
Professor Börje Forssell
Norwegian University of
Science and Technology,
G NSS (Global Navigation Satellite
Systems) is a common acronym
encompassing all existing and planned
Dept. of Electronics and satellite-based navigation systems. So far,
Telecommunications, the US-built GPS dominates the scene
Trondheim, Norway completely, but the Russian GLONASS
borje.forssell@iet.ntnu.no is approaching around-the-clock global
operational status, and other systems are
being developed (the European Galileo, the
Chinese Compass/Beidou and the Indian
IRNSS). There are also augmentation
systems of more or less operational
status (the US WAAS, the European
EGNOS, the Japanese MSAS and the
Indian GAGAN). Satellite navigation
is becoming part of everyday life, user
equipments are becoming cheaper, smaller,
easier to handle and with increasingly
improved performance. This development
is expected to continue for the foreseeable
future with receivers in mobile phones and
cars as dominating markets (Figs. 1-3).
The following discussion for obvious
reasons mostly refers to GPS, but the
[Car navigation already the arguments are generally valid for all
main use, and dominating in global navigation satellite-based systems.
commercial wireless devices
also.]
Actual performance
Today’s average performance of GPS
is used as a starting point for our
Fig. 1. GPS users in 2006
Manufacturing
7%
Tracking
10%
Aviation
Vessel voyage Hand held
4%
2% 26%
Military affairs
1%
GIS Survey
8% 7%
Car navigation
35%
6 | Coordinates February 2009
discussion. In not too distant a future,
even better numbers can be expected.
PDOP Availability: Requirement
- PDOP of 6 or less, 98% of the
time or better; Actual - 99.98%.
Horizontal Service Availability:
Requirement - 95% threshold of
36 metres, 99% of the time or
better; Actual – 3.7 metres.
Vertical Service Availability: Requirement
- 95% threshold of 77 metres, 99% of
the time or better; Actual – 5.3 metres.
User Range Error: Requirement
- 6 metres or less; Constellation
Average Actual - 1.2 metres.
What’s the problem?
The problem is that nothing works
100 %. GPS is very close, but for
some users under some circumstances,
“very close” is not good enough. The
situation in general is as follows:
• Most GPS users know nothing about
GPS vulnerability.
• Most users don’t care.
• Most GPS users can stand some
interruptions or performance reduction.
• Most politicians and representatives of
authorities in the field of navigation
don’t know of GPS vulnerability.
• Back-up systems are being
closed down (e.g. LORAN-C), and
there is little or no contact between
different countries about these matters.
GPS (and all satellite navigation systems,
more or less) are vulnerable because of
• Very low signal power received;
• A few frequencies (in the GPS case
today, only one for general use) and a
known signal structure;
• Spectrum competition;
• Worldwide military applications drive
a GPS disruption industry;
• Jamming techniques are
well known, devices are available,
or can be built easily (fig. 4).
In 2001 (just before the infamous 9/11), the
U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center
published results from an investigation
into the vulnerability of the transportation
infrastructure relying on GPS. Conclusions
to be drawn from that investigation are:
• Awareness should be created in the
navigation and timing communities
of the need for back-up systems or
operational procedures;
• All transportation modes should be
encouraged to pay attention to
autonomous integrity monitoring of
GPS/GNSS signals;
Fig. 2. Experienced and expected use of GPS/GNSS in cars
Fig. 3. Experienced and expected use of GPS/GNSS in mobile phones
Fig. 4. This dice is a 10 mW GPS jammer.
• All GPS/GNSS receivers in critical
applications must provide a timely
warning when the signals are
degraded or lost;
• Development of certifiable,
integrated (multipurpose) receivers
should be encouraged;
• A comprehensive analysis of GPS/
GNSS back-up navigation and
precise timing options (e.g. LORAN,
VOR/DME, ILS, INS) and operating
procedures should be conducted.
[This is part of the U. California, Skybridge• Multipath.
funded C-HALO Cost-Benefit
Causes of trouble study: google to • Intentional interference:
find that.]
There are many possible reasons for
degraded performance or service
interruption for users of GNSS:
• Satellite or control-
segment malfunctions.
Fig. 5. Example of a car navigation problem.
• Unintentional interference:
• Radio-frequency interference
(RFI) from external sources
(spectrum congestion,
harmonics, high-power
signals saturating receiver front
ends);
• Testing at system level;
• Ionospheric influence
(solar maxima, magnetic storms,
scintillations);
• Jamming;
• Spoofing (false signals into the
receiver);
• Meaconing (interception and
re-broadcast of navigation
signals).
• Human factors:
• User equipment and satellite
design errors;
• Over-reliance;
• Lack of knowledge
and/or training.
[& lack of accurate digital maps]
The main technical explanation of GNSS
receiver vulnerabilities to external
interference can be summarised as very
low power received from the satellites.
The minimum power level is usually
between -150 and -160 dBW. Looking
at the details for GPS, we see that
• acquisition requires 6 – 10 dB higher
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than
tracking,
• loss-of-lock sometimes occurs for
interference-to-signal ratios
(I/S) below 30 dB,
• receiver detection of loss-of-lock
is delayed because of narrowband
code-tracking loops,
• some lines in the GPS C/A-code
spectrum are more vulnerable
than others because of higher
power levels (Gold code spectra
do not exactly follow a sinc shape,
and spectral lines work as
local oscillator frequencies for
received interference signals),
• modulated interference is generally
Coordinates February 2009 | 7
 worse than white noise, and narrow-
band interference is worse than
wide-band.
Recorded examples
of GPS troubles
During the long (and ― don’t forget! ―
usually very successful) history of GPS,
a number of satellite malfunctions and
interference problems have been recorded.
Taking the record of April – August of
the year 2005 for examples of satellite
malfunctions, we find the following:
• SVN37 (PRN7): 3 Apr – Load-shed;
• SVN31 (PRN31): 14 Apr – Baseband
reset;
• SVN27 (PRN27): 14 May –
Rubidium #1 runoff leads to clock
swap;
• SVN26 (PRN26): 9 Jun – Rubidium
#1 clock jump;
• SVN15 (PRN15): 22 Jun –
Comparator Reference Value Change;
• SVN32 (PRN1): 24 Jul – Load-shed;
• SVN26 (PRN26): 21 Aug
– Crypto Variable Upload.
Experienced jamming and other records
of intentional interference are (for
obvious reasons) less available, but
unintentional interference examples are
abundant. Let us look at just two of them.
An infamous example is Moss Landing in
California. From May 2001 and several
months onward, no use of commercial
GPS receivers was possible in the whole
harbour area out to a distance at sea of
at least one kilometer. After the first
user reports about GPS unavailability,
considerable efforts were launched to find
the source of the interfering signal(s).
Finally, it was discovered that there were
in fact three sources, all of them being
active UHF/VHF TV antennas with
preamplifiers onboard pleasure boats.
In December the same year, a GPS
jammer caused GPS failures within
180 nautical miles of Mesa, Arizona.
Boeing was preparing for upcoming
tests and accidentally left a jammer
on the L1 frequency, radiating just
0.8 mW. The jammer operated
8 | Coordinates February 2009
continuously for 4.5 days. There were
several impacts to ATC operations
during the six days of jamming:
• Aircraft lost GPS 45 nm from
Phoenix, performed a 35° turn toward
traffic;
• NOTAM was not issued until 2nd
day;
• numerous pilots reported loss of GPS;
• There were reports of hand-
held GPS receivers not working.
Time users
Users of GPS as a time and/or frequency
reference are an often forgotten
or unknown but very important
part of the GPS community. Some
applications where GPS time is used:
• Navigation;
• Telecommunications;
• Digital broadcasting;
• Power generation and
distribution;
• Metrology;
• Meteorology;
• Radar;
• Tests and measurements
• Time tagging (Internet and
transport)
• Time-of-day distribution.
Many users of these applications
are crucially dependent on GPS for
their systems to work properly.
Countermeasures
If satellite signals do not meet
requirements, the only thing users can
do is to acquire information about the
malfunction(s) from other sources as
quickly as possible. Such information
acquisition is called integrity monitoring.
It can be receiver autonomous (RAIM)
or received from external wide-area
augmentation sources (e.g. WAAS,
EGNOS, MSAS, GAGAN) or from
local monitors (GBAS = Ground-
Based Augmentation Systems).
Integration of GNSS receiving equipment
with other sensors (e.g. inertial systems,
LORAN) can be very useful in case
of satellite signal malfunctioning.
Such integration can also be efficient
against interference and jamming.
Other countermeasures against all kinds
of external interference are filtering and
advanced signal processing, including
adaptive antennas and null-steering.
A question which is often asked is
whether upcoming systems (Galileo,
INRSS, etc.) will solve the problem.
The answer is that they will reduce the
problem but not solve it completely.
Satellite navigation
problems in cars
Drivers using car navigation equipment
experience problems fairly often
(Fig. 5). Due to lack of knowledge,
these problems are often wrongly
ascribed to the satellite system instead
of to the real cause, the map system.
(In fact, a lot of users call their car
navigator “my GPS”). A summary of
these problems might be written:
• Satellite-based car-navigation
equipment attracts negative
attention for doing a job logically…
but unintelligently;
• Expectations for such equipment are
high – expected to be smarter than the
driver (which-in fact-it often is!);
• Road classification
is difficult – one person’s farm
track is another’s handy shortcut.
[More accurage digital maps needed
along most roads, etc.
Conclusions and
recommendations
All GNSS users must evaluate and
analyse their own situation:
What would be the consequences
in case of GNSS problems?
If the answer is ‘no serious consequences’,
then “business as usual”.
But if there are possible serious
consequences, users must
prepare for the unexpected !
 POSITIONING
Quality evaluation of NRTK
correction transmission
The paper investigates the quality variation of the NRTK correction
transmission, and reveals its influence on the positioning solution
Lei Yang
Research Fellow IESSG
University of Nottingham
United Kingdom
lei.yang@nottingham.ac.uk
Dr Chris J Hill
Principal Research IESSG
University of Nottingham
United Kingdom
Dr Xiaolin Meng
Research Councils UK
Academic Fellow at the IESSG
Professor of Wuhan
University and Mapping
Jose Aponte
PhD student at the IESSG,
the University of Nottingham
Figure 1: Network RTK system architecture
which consists of a network reference stations
(left), central processing facility (middle) and
the user groups (right)
14 | Coordinates February 2009
G
NSS positioning/navigation devices
are rapidly merging into and
changing our modern lives, just like the
personal computer in the 1980’s and the
cellular phone in the 1990’s. It is predicted
that by 2012, the annual shipment of
navigation devices will increase to over
65 million units, which is more than three
times the 19.8 million shipped in 2006 [1].
Also in a situation personal computer and
cellular phone ever faced, a higher standard
service demand has been placed in front
of the GNSS technology, and becoming
a bottleneck before its potential mass
market can be exploited. More precisely, at
present, real time and high accuracy are the
two major concerns for many promising
commercial GNSS plans, such as Road
Pricing and Intelligent Transportation
Systems Services (ITSS) [2].
For these high demand applications, Real-
Time Kinematic (RTK) positioning is one
of the most significant solutions and has
been widely tested and commercialized in
many countries [3-5]. Its latest evolving
trend has been leading in the Network
RTK (NRTK) direction. NRTK technology
can remove spatially correlated errors and
effectively mitigate distance-dependent
errors in the GNSS measurements, and
achieve a centimetre-level positioning
solution [6]. In such a high accuracy real
time system, reliable and high-speed
server-rover communication (i.e. correction
message transmission) plays an important
role in the final performance. Our work
will investigate the quality variation of the
NRTK correction transmission, and reveal
its influence on the positioning solution.
NRTK background
In the traditional RTK technology, by
differencing the carrier phase observables
[Skybridge-
Telesaurus C-HALO
notes herein.
- W. Havens ]
between the receiver and a reference
station with known high-accuracy
position, spatially correlated errors can
be removed, and positioning accuracy
can be improved from tens of meters
(Stand Alone mode) to centimetre level.
The limitation of traditional RTK is that
some distance-dependent errors (such
as ionosphere delay) will increase with
the increasing length of the baseline
between the rover and the reference
station. Normally for an implementation
with centimetre-level accuracy
requirement, the baseline length should
not be more than 20km [2]. For national
GNSS applications, this limitation
would result in a dense reference
station network and considerable
investment in infrastructure.
To overcome this constraint, NRTK
was developed in recent years. In a
NRTK GNSS facility, a central data
server collects the raw observations
from a number of reference stations,
and sends corrections to a rover
positioning terminal after carrying out
an integrated processing. The rover
then combines these corrections with
its local carrier phase observations,
to obtain a high accuracy real time
positioning solution. The architecture
of NRTK system is shown in Figure 1.
In a NRTK implementation, through
the interpolation of corrections from a
set of reference stations, the distance-
dependent errors are mitigated and
the high-accuracy solution can be
achieved in a much greater area than a
traditional RTK implementation. The
separation between the NRTK reference
stations can be extended to 100km
[7], which means only 600 stations
could cover the whole European area.
 [ Skybridge-Telesaurus C-HALO will provide the wireless to meet all these needs nationwide:
"large, full, wide, IP supporting, no-charge, no-end-user license, and dedicatged.]

Data dissemination Currently both public Internet and using the setup as shown in Figure 2
GPRS can provide high-quality in a research lab within the Institute of
Much research in NRTK technology has services. However, these services are Engineering Surveying and Space Geodesy
focused on the efficiency and effectiveness not guaranteed. RTK data does not (IESSG) in the University of Nottingham.
of the reference stations measurement have any priority on these channels, The tests were carried out in a static NRTK
usage, through improving models although it is quite time-sensitive. mode with a GNSS antenna fixed on a
(especially for the ionosphere model) and During the transmission, frequent route precisely measured point to minimize
the data processing technique to reduce switching, channel congestion in peak- the influence from irrelevant factors.
the number of stations and cost. When a time and even any faulty from the service
network is getting sparse, the length of data provider’s equipment might cause the The whole system can be separated
communication will extend accordingly. RTK messages to be delayed or lost. into three sections: Data Source, Data
In the meantime, due to the rapid change [As depicted, none of the wireless has all Dissemination Route and Data User. In the
of the satellite geometry and also the needed elements. What is needed wide- data source section, a dedicated RTK GPS
atmospheric conditions, the correction Evaluation System area, dedicated network established jointly by the IESSG
messages from the data server have a mission-critical grade wireless.] and the Leica Geosystems is utilized. This
time-limited validity. Thus the challenge To study the impacts of these transmission network consists of 14 high grade geodetic
for NRTK data dissemination is to keep a variations, parallel tests were conducted GNSS station sites and covers an area of
reliable and high speed wide-bandwidth
service in a long distance transmission. Type of Comm. Radio Cellular Satellite Wi-Fi
The variations during the correction Range short large large very short
data transmission, i.e. message delay Coverage line of sight nearly full full limited
and loss, may increase with the increase
Bandwidth Wide Wide/limited limited Wide
of the baseline and eventually degrade
the high accuracy solution. Therefore IP supporting no yes yes yes
the quality of the RTK correction data Service charge no medium high low
dissemination should be taken seriously. Licensing required [N/A] no no no
reliability dedicated not guaranteed Exclusive not guaranteed
The RTK data transmission channel is service
a combination of cable connection and Table 1: Comparison of Different Correction Dissemination Approaches
wireless connection. In terms of the
cable connection part, public Internet
is the dominating choice. In 2003 an
application-level protocol, Network
Transport of RTCM via Internet Protocol
(NTRIP) was developed by the Federal
Agency for Cartography and Geodesy
(BKG), Germany [8]. It is dedicated to
streaming GNSS data over the Internet.
The data server of a RTK network is both
a TCP/IP server and an NTRIP caster.

In terms of the wireless connection part,

there are several available transmission
Figure 2: Evaluation System Design
methods which can be utilized for NRTK
positioning [9]. Table 1 includes the
comparison of the major features of these
methods and it can be concluded that only
commercial cellular communication and
satellite communication can be used in
the large area applications. Comparing
these two methods, the former has great
economic and practical predominance
at the current stage. Among the various
mobile networks in today’s market, the
GPRS (EDGE) and 3G network are the
best options [10] and the former has a
further advantage in the service coverage.

Figure 3 Data latency and corresponding horizontal and vertical errors;

Blue : Benchmark solution, Red: GPRS + Long Distance solution Coordinates February 2009 | 15
~20,000 km2 in the Midlands region in the
UK. The raw observations from these site
servers were sent to an NTRIP caster in
the central data processing centre, which
is located in the IESSG. Professional
NRTK software Leica Spider v3.0 was
adopted to organize the raw data, generate
correction data for any receiver request
and disseminate the correction messages
in the Radio Technical Commission for
Maritime services (RTCM) format.
In the data dissemination section, four
different transmission scenarios are
considered. The first one is through
a short local Ethernet link, in which
case the cabled connection between
the receiver and the NRTK server
is only tens of meters long, and can
simulate an ideal transmission link.
This transmission is assumed to have
zero message loss and delay, and
is used as a benchmark to compare
with the other three transmissions.
The second configuration is through a
commercial GPRS link, where the receiver
communicates to the NRTK server via
a dedicated cellular modem. The third
configuration is through a long-distance
public Internet link. In this scenario the
RTK data is relayed via a remote NTRIP
caster which is located at the Finnish
Geodetic Institute (FGI), Helsinki, Finland,
and sent back to the receiver. The public
Internet link used here is over 2000km
long. This scenario is designed to simulate
a rigorous cabled connection environment.
The last configuration is a combination of
the second and third setting, i.e. a long-
distance public Internet plus a GPRS
link. The RTK data is sent to the remote
NTRIP caster in Helsinki and sent back to
the receiver via a commercial GPRS link,
which can represent a typical commercial
NRTK correction transmission.
In the data user section in Figure 2,
a geodetic Leica 1200 receiver was
employed. Its outputs are provided in
NMEA $GPGGA format at 20Hz and are
logged by a PC. Besides the positioning
solution, the data latency, or the “age of
correction” (i.e. the elapsed time from the
time of the latest RTK correction to the
time of the current solution made [11])
is available in the GGA sentence and can
be used to determine the message delay.

To avoid the influence of irrelevant factor,

the parallel tests are carried out at the
same time, and utilizing the same type of
receivers, sharing a common GPS antenna
and keeping all the same configurations
except the transmission methods. Therefore
differences between the benchmark and the
other three solutions are only caused by the
transmission variation. Also, although the
Figure 4 Distribution of the message delay
solutions are made in the RTK mode, all
the tests are carried out as static, to avoid
Message Delay (sec) Message
the unnecessary kinematic disturbance.
Average Std. Loss
Benchmark 0 0.03 0%
GPRS 0.44 0.24 1.1% Data Analysis
Long Distance 0.43 0.34 12.4%
GPRS +Long Distance 0.85 0.45 20.6% Figure 3 illustrates a comparison between
Table 2 Statistics of the message delay and loss the benchmark solution and the solution
via the GPRS combined with the long
<0.5cm 0.5~1 cm >1 cm Std. (cm) distance Internet link, in a 10-second-
Benchmark 89.43% 10.55% 0.03% 0.16 long timeslot. The comparison is made
GPRS 80.93% 18.60% 0.47% 0.18 in terms of the latency, the horizontal
error and the vertical error respectively.
Long Distance 70.53% 27.13% 2.35% 0.24
GPRS + Long Distance 68.09% 29.30% 2.60% 0.25
Because the receiver makes the solutions at
Table 3 Statistic of the horizontal error 20 Hz, the latency will gradually increase
by 0.05 second at each logging point
<1 cm 1~2 cm >2 cm Std. (cm) over the time axis, until a new correction
Benchmark 97.01% 2.98% 0.01% 0.45 message is received, which brings the
GPRS 87.70% 11.90% 0.40% 0.64 latency value back to zero. Therefore the
Long Distance 83.84% 15.50% 0.66% 0.69 height of the triangle shape in the latency
figure can show the receiving time interval
GPRS +Long Distance 82.11% 16.81% 1.09% 0.73
Table 4 Statistic of the vertical error
16 | Coordinates February 2009
With a tradition of innovation, NavCom continues to leave its footprint on
the evolving GNSS industry. Propelled by our award-winning engineering
team, our industry leading technology includes the StarFire™ network – the
world’s first global satellite-based augmentation system (GSBAS) – RTK
Extend™ and Ultra RTK™. This unique expertise along with NavCom’s precise
positioning products allows our partners to create innovative GNSS solutions.
As John Deere’s technology steward, NavCom continues to introduce
groundbreaking solutions, enabling our business partners to take on larger
projects, improve their efficiency – and make their own history.
NavCom – Here today, here tomorrow.
To learn more, call us at +1-310-381-2000.

w w w . nav com t ech.com

Coordinates February 2009 | 17
between two consecutive messages. In the
benchmark solution it can be seen that,
due to the ideal transmission environment,
the messages are received at a nearly
constant one-second-interval; while in the
combined link solution, the messages are
received at varying intervals, which can
show that the condition of the transmission
route was unstable. It can be seen from
the latter solution that there is a triangle
with a two-second height. This shows
a message loss in its scheduled time.
Because of the delay, the same message
may arrive at different times in two links.
Accordingly, in the latency chart of Figure
3, the channel delay results in a separation
between the two different colour triangles.
Considering the zero transmission delay
in the ideal benchmark solution, this
separation can determine the message
transmission delay in the combined
link solution, as marked in the figure.
Statistics of both the message delay and
loss in different solutions are shown in
Table 2. It can be seen that the average
delay of the GPRS and the long distance
Internet link are at the same level, and the
average delay of the combined link is close
to a second (0.85 sec). Both the standard
deviation of the message delay and the
message loss percentage show the stability
of the transmission, where the GPRS link
is relatively more stable than the long
distance Internet link, and the combined
link is the worst. Comparing to the GPRS
link, the long distance Internet link suffered
much more message loss, and 20% of the
messages were lost in the combining link.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of the
message delay, for the three transmission
scenarios. The long distance Internet
link shows a greater spread in the delay
than the GPRS link, due to its larger
number of packet switchings during the
transmission. There is no delay higher
than two seconds in these two links,
because if a message arrives later than
the following message, it will simply be
rejected by the receiver and will be treated
as a message loss. The combined link
does have a small percentage of message
delays higher than two seconds, because
the following message may also not arrive
on time due to its rigorous environment.
18 | Coordinates February 2009
With increasing message delay and loss,
the receiver may not have the latest RTK
corrections on time and only can ‘predict’
the present correction from the past RTK
data [12]. The time-sensitive error will
increase and the positioning solution
will drift away from the true coordinates.
In Figure 3, it can clearly be seen that,
during the message-lost period, both the
horizontal error and the vertical error
are increased and a ‘degradation peak’ is
formed. The statistics of the horizontal
error and the vertical error are shown
in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively. It
can be seen that both the GPRS link and
the long distance Internet link introduce
some ‘degradation peaks’ and degrade the
positioning solution precision eventually.
Again, the long distance Internet link
shows a larger influence than the GPRS
link. Comparing to the benchmark
solution, the precision of the combined
link solution is degraded by 60%.
Conclusion
This paper presents a study to investigate
the quality of the NRTK data transmission
methods. The two transmission
variations, message delay and loss,
were both observed whilst the GPRS
link and the long distance Internet link
were used. The combination of the two
links was shown to have a 0.85 second
average delay and 20% message loss.
It is demonstrated that these variations
might introduce 60% degradation in the
precision of the positioning solution
in a static test. When designing a RTK
network in a large-area, this transmission
influence should be considered, and as a
compensation, a more frequent message
sending scheme could be considered.
References
[1] iSuppli report, 2007, Portable
Navigation Devices Growth
[2] Meng X., Yang L., Aponte J., Hill
C., Moore T. and Dodson A., 2008,
Development of Satellite Based
Positioning and Navigation Facilities
for Precise ITS Applications, the 11th
International IEEE Conference on
Intelligent Transportation Systems
[3] Namie H., NishiKawa K., Sasano
K., Fan C. and Yasuda A., 2008,
Development of Network-Based
RTK-GPS Positioning System
Using FKP via a TV Broadcast
in Japan, IEEE Transactions on
Broadcasting, 54(1), pp. 106-111
[4] Marel H., 1998, Virtual GPS
Reference Stations in the Netherlands,
ION GPS’98 Proceedings, pp. 49-58
[5] Kumar M. D., Homer J., Kubik
K. and Higgins M., 2005,
Efficient RTK Positioning by
Integrating Virtual Reference
Stations with WCDMA Network,
Journal of Global Positioning
Systems, 4(1-2), pp. 48-55
[6] Retscher G. , 2002, Accuracy
Performance of Virtual Reference
Station (VRS) networks,
Journal of Global Positioning
Systems, 1(1), pp. 40-47
[7] Fotopoulos G. and Cannon M.
E., 2001, An Overview of Multi-
Reference Station Methods for
Cm-Level Positioning, GPS
Solutions, 4(3), pp. 1-10
[8] Radio Technical Commission
for Maritime Services, 2003,
Networked Transport of RTCM
via Internet Protocol Version 1.0,
RTCM paper 167-203/SC104-315
[9] Cruddace P., Wilson I., Greaves
M., Euler H-J., Keenan R. and
Wuebbena G., 2002, The Long
Road to Establishing a National
Network RTK Solution, 22th
FIG International Congress
[10] Meng X., Dodson A., Moore T.
and Roberts G., 2007, Ubiquitous
Positioning, GPS World, June
[11] National Marine Electronics
Association, 1998, NMEA 0183
Standard for Interfacing Marine
Electronic Devices Version 2.30
[12] Leica Geosystems, 2007, GPS
1200 Technical Reference
Manual Version 1.1